🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the top if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.